European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 7 of 67 · 1,592 total
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for leave to appeal against a cost determination in a prior infringement action involving Microsoft and Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court upheld the CFI's award of EUR 350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft. The ruling emphasizes the strict proportionality requirements under Article 69(1) UPCA when reviewing cost assessments.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an application for rehearing related to EP 2 152 073. Both parties, Sumi Agro and Syngenta, jointly requested the withdrawal, leading the court to permit it under R. 265.1 RoP. While the core dispute was dropped, the Court provided clear guidance on procedural matters, specifically confirming that joint requests for withdrawal waive the need for a cost decision but do not automatically allow for fee waivers.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement action against multiple defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd. The court formally closed the proceedings based on the mutual agreement of the represented parties. While the core dispute was settled by withdrawal, the claimant secured a partial reimbursement of court fees (EUR 11,400) under specific UPC Rules of Procedure.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement action against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several other defendants concerning EP 2 645 714. The court formally closed the proceedings based on the parties' mutual agreement. While the core dispute was settled, the ruling confirmed that all involved parties would bear their own costs, though NEC received a partial reimbursement of its court fees.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Lindal Dispenser GmbH against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning patent EP 3 655 346. Both parties agreed to close the proceedings, and the court granted the request for reimbursement of court fees. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach a mutual agreement to terminate litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a case involving Huawei and several mobile technology manufacturers, the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Mannheim permitted the claimant to withdraw its infringement action. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to settle or abandon litigation by mutual consent. The court formally closed the proceedings while granting the claimant reimbursement for a portion of the incurred court fees.
Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyages v.Robert Bosch Doo Bograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC procedural order addressed a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction in an infringement case involving Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyages against various Robert Bosch entities. The court rejected the argument that the Central Division had universal competence due to cross-border infringements and instead applied Article 33(1)(b) of the UPC Agreement, transferring the case to the local division of Düsseldorf. This decision highlights the strict application of jurisdictional rules when defendants are domiciled within contracting states.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests from Samsung (Defendants) to introduce new evidence and pleadings related to ongoing license negotiations and third-party agreements. The Court dismissed the broad requests for further written submissions and production orders, citing concerns over 'ping-pong' effects and the timing of the evidence. However, recognizing the dynamic nature of FRAND licensing, the Court granted a limited window for parties to submit briefs on new developments before the oral hearing, ensuring that all relevant facts can be considered during the merits phase.
Sun Patent Trust v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a procedural ruling from the Mannheim Local Court, Sun Patent Trust withdrew its infringement claim against multiple defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings. The parties reached an agreement regarding the termination of the case and cost allocation. While the core dispute was dropped, the court confirmed the withdrawal and ordered a partial refund of the initial court fees to the claimant.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA
In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal of an infringement claim brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Concurrently, the counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3186937 was also withdrawn. The court formally terminated both proceedings based on the parties' mutual agreement. This case highlights how procedural agreements between litigants can lead to the early conclusion of complex UPC actions.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for access to written pleadings and evidence. The court balanced the general interest in public access against concerns regarding confidentiality, personal data protection (GDPR), and copyright. Ultimately, limited access was granted to the law firm representing one party, provided all personal data was redacted.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA
In a procedural ruling before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH withdrew its infringement claim against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Simultaneously, the defendants successfully withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent EP 3 353 901. The court accepted both withdrawals, declaring the proceedings terminated. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to a swift conclusion in complex UPC litigation, focusing on mutual consent rather than substantive merits.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
In a significant ruling concerning SEP licensing and anti-suit injunctions, the UPC Local Division Mannheim confirmed an order preventing Amazon from pursuing contractual claims in UK courts. The applicants (InterDigital) successfully defended their attempt to enforce measures designed to ensure that patent infringement proceedings before the UPC are not undermined by external legal actions. This decision reinforces the UPC's jurisdiction and its ability to manage complex cross-border disputes involving standard-setting organizations.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the production of evidence in an alleged patent infringement case concerning MPEG-4/AAC standards. The Defendant sought access to historical licensing agreements, arguing they were necessary for assessing FRAND compliance and potential exhaustion of rights. Conversely, the Claimant resisted disclosure of its own current license agreement due to confidentiality obligations. The Court partially sided with both parties, rejecting the broad disclosure requests while compelling the submission of a specific, highly confidential contract.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH (and associated Myriad entities)
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403. The patent covered methods for quantifying gene expression in breast cancer tissue using RT-PCR and normalization to endogenous reference genes. Despite GXD-Bio Corporation's infringement claims against Myriad International GmbH and its subsidiaries regarding their EndoPredict-Test, the court dismissed the infringement action following the revocation of the patent. This ruling underscores the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where a successful counterclaim for revocation can immediately extinguish an associated infringement claim.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In a significant decision for cybersecurity IP, the UPC Local Division Mannheim revoked European Patent EP 3 652 914 B1. The patent, which covered methods for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows using machine learning and threat logs, was invalidated due to lack of inventive step in its amended claims. This revocation led directly to the dismissal of the concurrent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., highlighting the critical interplay between validity challenges and enforcement actions within the UPC framework.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural issues arising from an application to preserve evidence in a medical device patent case. The court emphasized that defendants must actively utilize provided CMS access codes and appoint representatives promptly if they wish to comment on confidentiality interests related to expert reports. Since the respondent failed to log into the CMS, the court proceeded with disclosing the unredacted expert description to the applicant while simultaneously revoking the evidence preservation measures unless the main infringement proceedings were quickly initiated.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
This entry represents a case file involving UERAN Technology LLC against Xiaomi Corporation. However, the provided text is merely an excerpt showing the signatures and dates of the involved parties' counsel and judges/participants. Consequently, no substantive information regarding the infringement claims, patent scope, or final judgment can be determined from this snippet.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd
This UPC appellate decision clarifies the strict application of Article 69(4) EPC regarding cost security. The court ruled that in appeal proceedings, only the appellant is considered the applicant for costs purposes. Consequently, Grundfos (the appellee/claimant in this specific context) was permitted to request security against Hefei (the appellant/respondent). This ruling reinforces the principle that cost security measures are designed to protect the party initiating the legal action from potential non-payment.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The case, filed under R. 206 RoP, targeted counterfeit printer cartridges (types 924 and 937) sold by both German and Chinese defendants. Crucially, the court also imposed significant penalty payments on the Chinese defendant to enforce compliance with the provisional measures, demonstrating a strong enforcement stance in UPC proceedings.
Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited; Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by the litigation intelligence platform, Docket Navigator, seeking access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in an concluded case. The court ruled that the commercial interest of making these documents available to subscribers does not meet the threshold for protection under Article 45 UPCA. Furthermore, the requirement for representation was deemed essential to safeguard procedural integrity. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining judicial confidentiality unless a legitimate public interest is demonstrated.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
In this UPC decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for an ex-parte order concerning the inspection and preservation of evidence related to robot localization technology. The court ultimately revoked the existing provisional measure because the applicant's submission was deemed incomplete and misleading regarding the core facts. This ruling serves as a strong warning to applicants seeking urgent interim relief that procedural integrity is paramount, especially when relying on ex-parte proceedings.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order addressed a dispute over evidence disclosure in an ongoing patent infringement and FRAND assessment case concerning MPEG-4/AAC technology. The Defendant sought access to the Claimant's confidential licensing agreements with third parties to assess potential antitrust issues (FRAND compliance). The UPC Court partially granted the request, rejecting the production of external documents but compelling the Claimant to submit its own bilateral license agreement under stringent confidentiality protocols.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning the preservation and inspection of evidence in a medical technology dispute. The court ruled that if a defendant fails to utilize the provided CMS access code to comment on confidentiality interests after receiving an expert's detailed description, the applicant's right to proceed with disclosure is upheld. This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely digital engagement by parties involved in UPC proceedings.